It's a start Dafcast Draft
ברכות
שבת
עירובין
פסחים
ראש השנה
יומא
סוכה
ביצה
תענית
מגילה
מועד קטן
חגיגה
יבמות
כתובות
נדרים
נזיר
סוטה
גיטין
קידושין
בבא קמא
בבא מציעא
בבא בתרא
סנהדרין
מכות
שבועות
עבודה זרה
הוריות
זבחים
מנחות
חולין
בכורות
ערכין
תמורה
כריתות
מעילה
תמיד
נידה

PREVIEW OF THE DAFCAST WEBSITE FOR CYCLE 13

Please do not forward this link around yet! This is still in development and will be "released", God willing, on August 1, in time for the thirteenth cycle of Daf Yomi.

Disclaimers, Copyright, and Credits

Disclaimers

This is an early draft. I haven't proofread; there are plenty of typos and probably some more significant errors as well.
Most pages on this site are currently auto-translated. The autotranslations are intended as a starting point for my manual translations. At best, they are awkward stringing-togethers of words and phrases in the corpus database that can benefit from cleaning up. At worst, they are picking the wrong homograph. Auto-translations are indicated by italics.
I am not a rabbi or an expert. These are my translations, and in some cases I am certainly misunderstanding things.
The Talmud is a document of its time. While the Talmud is a foundational document of Judaism, it must be read in its historical context. There are passages that are xenophobic, sexist, and irreconcilable with modern science. Not everything in these pages represents contemporary Judaism.

Copyright

This translation is protected by copyright. I'm putting a lot of effort into this project. Please respect that by only copying with my permission.
I intend to provide free licenses for most uses. I plan to use a Creative Commons CC-NC-BY-SA license, which will allow you to re-use my translations as long as you don't charge money for them (NC), as long as you give me credit (BY), and as long as you make your derived work available under the same terms (SA). But I'm not ready to do that yet because this is still a very rough work-in-progress.
In the meantime, if you want to re-use this, please contact me. I am willing to discuss re-use on an ad hoc basis. Perhaps the one page you want to use is actually ready for re-use. Ask. I'll probably work out a way to say "yes."

Credits

I need to clean up this section. But for now, I'll note that I've made use of the Hebrew/Aramaic text of the Bavli at Mechon Mamre; Jastrow's dictionary; "The Practical Talmud Dictionary" by Yitzchak Frank. I've also used the big three translations of the Talmud --- Soncino (English), Artscroll (English), and Steinsaltz (Hebrew) --- and the Kehati (English) edition of the Mishna, to help me understand passages before translating them.
Go to daf 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Or set your preferences to change how Hebrew/Aramaic is displayed.

דף ו,א גמרא

Come and hear: Rabbi Shimon says: there are some cases of /notar/ which are subject to the laws of misappropriation, and there are some cases of /notar/ which are not subject to the laws of misappropriation, How so? If the blood sat overnight Before the act of sprinkling, it is subject to the laws of misappropriation After the act of sprinkling, it is not subject to the laws of misappropriation The tanna teaches: Regardless, They are subject to the laws of misappropriation Is this not the case where there was time for its sprinkling So if he wished, he could sprinkle but he chose not to do so, rendering the blood /notar/ but subjecting it to the laws of misappropriation? And learn from this that we learn that it means "permitted to eat"? No. Its blood was collected close to the setting of the sun and there was not time for it to be sprinkled. But: Assuming that there was time to sprinkle the blood What then? Here, too, there should not be the laws of misappropriation. What is the purpose of teaching: "Before the act of sprinkling"? Let the Tanna teach: "Before sunset" and "After sunset" Here, too, The tanna teaches: before the time when it is appropriate to sprinkle the blood i.e., before sunset and after the time when it is appropriate to sprinkle the blood i.e., after sunset

Come and hear: Rabbi Shimon says: There are cases of pigul that are subject to the laws of misappropriation and there are cases of pigul that are not subject to the laws of misappropriation How so? Before the act of sprinkling, they are subject to the laws of misappropriation After the act of sprinkling, they are not subject to the laws of misappropriation The tanna teaches: Regardless, Before the act of sprinkling, They are subject to the laws of misappropriation Is this not the case where there was time for its sprinkling So if he wished, he could sprinkle And we have learned the offering is subject to the laws of misappropriation. so learn from this that it means "permitted to eat". No. There was not time for its sprinkling But: where there was time for its sprinkling What is the ruling? Here, too, Would it be exempt from the hands of the law of misappropriation? What is the purpose of teaching: "After the act of sprinkling"? Let the Tanna teach: "Before sunset" and "after the setting of the sun" Here, too, he comes to say i.e., what he really means is: before the time when it is appropriate to sprinkle the blood i.e., before sunset until after the time when it is appropriate to sprinkle the blood i.e., after sunset

Come and hear: Pigul in the case of the holiest of holy offerings we subject them to the laws of misappropriation. Is this not the case where he sprinkled the blood And learn from this that it means "permitted to eat"? No. Because he did not sprinkle. But: In a case where he sprinkled the blood --- What would be the ruling? Here, too, is it not the case that it would not be subject to the laws of misappropriation? What is the purpose of teaching: "in the case of simple-holiness offerings, the laws of misappropriation do not apply" Let the Tanna teach: here, "Before the act of sprinkling," and here, "After the act of sprinkling," The Tanna chose this wording in order to teach an additional ruling All that comes to be included in the scope lit: hands of the laws of misappropriation its sprinkling must be according to the correct process, bringing it into the scope of the laws of misappropriation. All that is to be removed from the scope lit: hands of the laws of misappropriation. even that which was not according to the correct process is also taken out from the scope lit: hands of the laws of misappropriation.

דף ו,ב משנה

The flesh of the holiest of holy offerings that went out before the sprinkling of blood: R' Eliezer says: the offering is subject to the laws of misappropriation. but we do not become guilty on its account due to i.e., in cases of pigul, notar, and tamei Rabbi Akiva says: the laws of misappropriation do not apply but we are guilty on its account due to i.e., in cases of pigul and notar and tamei Rabbi Akiva said: Consider this case: He set aside i.e., designated one animal from a group as his sin offering and it was lost misplaced so he set aside another one as its replacement, and after this the first one is found and behold, the both of them stand designated. Implied is that he slaughters them both but only performs sprinkling with the blood of one Is it not the case that, just as its blood i.e., the blood of the one which has been sprinkled exempts its flesh i.e., exempts the flesh of that particular animal from the laws of misappropriation thus in the same way it exempts the flesh of its fellow? If its blood exempts the flesh of its fellow from the laws of misappropriation it would follow logically that the blood exempts the flesh of its own animal.

Another case. The /aymurim/ those portions of the sacrifice which are placed on the altar of simple offerings that were taken out from the Courtyard before the sprinkling of blood: Rabbi Eliezer says: We do not apply the laws of misappropriation to them and we do not become guilty on their account due to i.e., in cases of pigul, notar, and tamei Rabbi Akiva says: We apply the laws of misappropriation to them and we do become guilty on their account due to i.e., in cases of pigul, notar, and tamei

דף ו,ב גמרא

Why do I have both of these cases. Would not either one be sufficient? It was necessary to teach both, because otherwise you might err when extending one to the other. For if it only stated the case of the holiest of holy offerings then I might incorrectly say: In this case, this is what R' Eliezer said: the offering is subject to the laws of misappropriation. because sprinkling according to the correct process takes the offering out from the scope lit: hands of the laws of misappropriation but that which was not according to the correct process does not take the offering out from the scope lit: hands of the laws of misappropriation But: to include the offering in the scope lit: hands of the laws of misappropriation he would acknowledge the correct position of Rabbi Akivah that even that which was not according to the correct process includes the offering in the scope lit: hands of the laws of misappropriation And if it was said regarding simple offerings then I might incorrectly say: regarding simple offerings it was Rabbi Akivah who said We apply the laws of misappropriation to them because according to him, even an act of sprinkling that which was not according to the correct process includes the offering in the scope lit: hands of the laws of misappropriation But: The holiest of holy offerings which are to be removed from the scope of these laws, that which was not according to the correct process does not take the offering out from the scope lit: hands of the laws of misappropriation Come and learn from this. that both teachings are necessary

It was said: R' Yochanan said: that Rabbi Akiva said: sprinkling is effective ??? to take out that went out partially But: if it went out completely, Rabbi Akivah did not say that it is effective. Rav Assi said to Rabbi Yochanan Already My colleagues in the Babylonian exile have taught me

Copyright © 2012 Andrew Marc Greene. All rights reserved.